Torque Expression Capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 Bracket Slots by Changing Archwire Material and Cross Section

Arreghini et al.
Progress in Orthodontics 2014, 15:53

http://www.progressinorthodontics.com/content/15/1/53
RESEARCH Open Access
Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022

bracket slots by changing archwire material and
cross section
Angela Arreghini1*, Luca Lombardo2, Francesco Mollica3 and Giuseppe Siciliani2
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study is to calculate and compare the play and torque expression of 0.018 and 0.022
bracket slots when engaged with archwires of different size, cross section and material.
Methods: Eight orthodontic brackets, two of slot height 0.018 and six of slot height 0.022, from different
manufacturers, were measured and fixed to a vertical support. Twenty-four archwires of differing size, cross section
and material were selected, measured and tested in each bracket of compatible slot width. Compression testing by
Instron dynamometer and geometric calculations enabled us to determine the play angle of each bracket/archwire
combination, and the angle at which a clinically efficacious force couple, sufficient for dental movement, is exerted.
Results: All bracket/archwire combinations considered were found to have play angles far above the ideal. This is
ascribable to the slots being oversized with respect to the manufacturers' claims. Likewise, some archwires were
found to be oversized, while others undersized.
When the same archwire was tested with brackets from different manufacturers, the play and torque expression
differed, despite the same nominal dimensions of the slots. When the same bracket was tested with the same size
archwires, their construction material was found to influence the torque expression, due to the difference in elastic
modulus, but not the wire/slot play.
Conclusions: The dimensional precision of orthodontic brackets and archwires and the rigidity of the latter have a
profound influence on the torque expression of pre-angled appliances.
Keywords: Torque expression; Slot precision; Play
Background tooth, the archwire must come into contact with the
In the straight-wire technique, brackets are pre-programmed walls of the slot and then undergo further torsion, gener-
with first-, second- and third-order information, which is ating a force couple through which a moment, or torque,
expressed thanks to the interplay between the archwire is expressed. In 1982, Burstone stated that a clinically
and slot, a function of their respective geometries and efficacious moment is between 5 and 20 Nmm [2], i.e.
sizes. When an undersized archwire is inserted into a no tooth movement occurs under 5 Nmm, and torque
bracket slot, the wire can rotate clockwise or anticlock- exceeding 20 Nmm is likely to damage the periodontal
wise. The angle of freedom of the wire within the bracket tissues.
slot is known as ‘play’, and this increases as the difference Hence, the effective size of the slot is of fundamental
in size between the archwire and the slot [1]. importance in orthodontic biomechanics. The earliest
Within this range of rotation, no dental movement edgewise appliances designed by Angle in 1925 [3] fea-
occurs, so to transmit third-order information to the tured brackets with slots of height 0.022 inch. In 1930,
however, with the introduction of more rigid steel alloys,
archwire diameters began to get smaller. This led Steiner,
* Correspondence: angela_arreghini@yahoo.com
1
Postgraduate School of Orthodontics, University of Ferrara, Via Montebello
in 1952, to design a bracket with slot 0.018, which were
31, 44100 Ferrara, Italy threaded with working archwires of cross section .017 × .025
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2014 Arreghini et al.; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
CommonsAttribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Arreghini et al. Progress in Orthodontics 2014, 15:53 Page 2 of 18
Table 1 Brackets selected for the study

Bracket Manufacturer Tooth Slot height (inch) Tip Torque
Victory 3M UNITECK 3.3 .022 3° 0°
SFP Lancer 3.3 .022 3° 0°
Ovation GAC Dentsply 4.1 .022 2° −1°
D.B. Standard Leone 4.1 .022 0° 0°
Damon Ormco 3.3 .022 5° 0°
Nexus Ormco 4.1 .022 0° 0°
STB Ormco Lower premolar .018 0° 0°
Resolve VS 2D GAC Dentsply 4.1 .018 0° 0°
and full-thickness archwires of .018 × .025 [4]. From the of a formable alloy of elasticity between steel and nickel
1970s onwards, first, Andrews then Roth introduced and titanium (NiTi) [9].
perfected the straight-wire technique, using working wires The .022 inch system has mechanical advantages in
of dimensions .019 × .025 and greater thickness wires of some clinical situations, such as during sliding mechan-
.021 × .025 in slot size 0.022 [5]. This marked the start of a ics when a .019 × .025″ SS archwire is used, nevertheless,
divergence between two of the most widespread ortho- .018 inch system seems to be superior in the amount of
dontic systems: those involving 0.022 inch slots and those the couple it is able to express, when a .017 × .025″ SS
relying on 0.018 inch slots. archwire is engaged [10]. On the other hand, clinical
Over the same period, the archwires also began to studies on the final outcome of .018 and .022 inch systems
evolve. In the 1930s, the first chromium/nickel/steel alloy did not show any significant difference, as the operator ex-
wires were introduced [6,7], and in the 1950s, the Elgin perience seems to be the fundamental parameter [11].
Watch Company developed chromium/cobalt archwires, Both the properties of the material from which it is
whose rigidity increases when heat-treated [8]. In the made (elastic modulus and elastic or superelastic behav-
1960s, the US Navy created a revolutionary ‘shape- iour) and the geometry (cross section and relative size to
memory’ alloy, Nitinol, which is 20% more elastic than the slot) of an archwire will influence its capacity to ex-
conventional steel and has a much broader field of ac- press torque [12]. For this reason, our aim was to deter-
tion. This was followed, in 1980, by the Ormco Corpo- mine the passive play and the relative torque expression
rations launch of beta-titanium (TMA) archwires, made capacity of brackets with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slots
Figure 1 Nexus bracket photographed under electron microscope.

Table 2 Archwires selected for the study

Material Cross section Size Type Manufacturer
SS Square .016 × .016 Straight Ormco
STB SS Square .017 × .017 Curved Ormco
STB SS Square .018 × .018 Curved Ormco
SS Rectangular .016 × .022 Straight Ormco
Supertempered SS Rectangular .016 × .022 Curved GAC DENTSPLY
Supertempered SS Rectangular .018 × .022 Curved GAC DENTSPLY
STB TMA Square .0175 × .0175 Curved Ormco
Damon TMA Rectangular .019 × .025 Curved Ormco
Damon TMA Rectangular .021 × .025 Curved Ormco
STB CuNiTi Square .016 × .016 Curved Ormco
Smartclip Nitinol SuperElastic Dimpled Rectangular .017 × .025 Curved 3M Unitek
Damon CuNiTi Rectangular .018 × .025 Curved Ormco
Nitinol SuperElastic Rectangular .019 × .025 Curved 3M Unitek
Nitinol Heat-Activated Rectangular .019 × .025 Curved 3M Unitek
Smartclip Nitinol Hybrid Rectangular .019 × .025 Curved 3M Unitek
Nitinol Heat-Activated Rectangular .021 × .025 Curved 3M Unitek
Figure 2 Torque testing using an Instron 4467 dynamometer.

Figure 3 Measuring the distance between bracket slot and top of stand.
when threaded with archwires of different size, cross sec- slot 0.022 inch, of which four were conventional brackets
tion and material. and two self-ligating (Table 1). A clamp was used to fix
The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the the vertical position of each bracket, and the slots were
play and in the torque expression when different material photographed at magnification ×100 using a Hirox CT-
and cross section archwires are engaged in bracket with 7700 digital microscope (Hackensack, NJ,USA), whose
the same slot height. precision is of the order of tenths of a millimetre (Figure 1).
ImageJ software (Cambridge, UK) was then used to
Methods measure the height of the slot, i.e. the distance between
Eight different brackets produced by three different manu- its occlusal and gingival edges. As brackets feature a
facturers were selected: two of slot 0.018 inch and six of certain amount of divergence, the height of each slot
Figure 4 Torquing key with archwire engaged.

Figure 5 Torque testing.
Figure 6 Schematic of torque testing.

Figure 7 Load/deflection curve, steel archwire.
was measured at three points: that closest to the base, testing strip (tip radius of curvature 1 mm). The vertical
that on the external surface and that midway between displacement of the strip was transformed into torque of
the two. A mean of these three measurements was then the archwire in the brackets (Figure 2). The brackets
compared with the nominal slot height declared by the were welded to a metal stand with their slots perfectly
manufacturer. parallel to the base, under the guidance of a viewfinder
Twenty-four archwires from two different manufac- at a ×5 magnification, so as to cancel out their tip and
turers were selected, ten steel, two supertempered steel, torque values. The stand, with brackets attached, was
nine NiTi and three TMA. Seven of these wires had a then photographed using a Leica MZ6 optical micro-
square cross section and 17 rectangular (Table 2). The scope (Solms, Germany), and Aquinto A4I Docu soft-
height and width of each archwire was measured three ware (Frankfurt, Germany) was used to verify the
times by the same operator using a Midway digital effective parallelism of the bracket to the base of sup-
micrometre (Vogel, Orange City, IA, USA), whose preci- port, and to measure the distance between the top of the
sion is stated to be ±1μm. For each wire tested, the stand and the upper edge of each slot, to define its pos-
mean and standard deviation of the three measurements ition with as much precision as possible (Figure 3).
was calculated, and via calculation of the standard error Each archwire was then engaged in a ‘torquing key’, a
of the mean statistical test, the former was compared type of pliers purposely designed to clamp the wire at
with the nominal archwire dimensions declared by the two points, 6 mm apart. The device also features a rod
manufacturer (P < 0.01). on the same plane as the orthodontic archwire, perpen-
To calculate the real-world play between the various dicular to the plier clamps, marked at a fixed distance of
archwires and bracket slots, load-deflection testing was 11.15 mm from the same (Figure 4). The purpose of this
performed using an Instron 4467 dynamometer (Instron, key was to hold the archwire fast while allowing it to
Norwood, MA, USA) featuring a 100 N load cell and a torque upon contact between the Instron testing strip
Figure 8 Load/deflection curve, NiTi archwire.

and the post, perpendicular to the plier clamps, main- F = K / d, so the deflection of the strip and the corre-
taining the bar and archwire on the same plane. sponding angles.
The bracket stand was fixed to the base of the dyna- Each compatible archwire was tested three times in
mometer at a horizontal distance of 11.15 mm between each bracket, and in each test, the passive play angle,
bracket and testing strip. The testing strip was lowered the torque angle at 5 Nmm and the torque angle at
until it came into contact with the top edge of the stand 20 Nmm was identified. This data was analysed as
and then moved to the exact height of the slot (point follows:
zero). The archwire, still clamped in the torquing key,
was engaged in the slot and fixed in place with an elastic First, using previously described calculations [13],
ligature (conventional brackets), or by closing the active the ideal play for each archwire in each slot was
clip (self-ligating). Engaging the archwire, the torquing identified, i.e. the angle of engagement that would
key rod was spontaneously lowered with respect to the result if the real-world dimensions of the slot and
horizontal plane due to ‘passive’ play. Lowering the archwire matched those declared by their respective
Instron testing strip from point zero to the point of manufacturers, and if the archwire had 90° edge
first contact with the torquing key (h) enables the dis- bevels.
tance (d) (Figures 5 and 6) and, therefore, the play Second, this figure was compared with the real-world
angle (α) to be determined. Using the Instron machine play we measured earlier, using the standard
to lower the testing strip still further, a load is exerted error of the mean calculation statistical test to
on the key. The archwire rotates within the slot and determine whether any differences were
torque is exerted. significant (P < 0.01).
From the results of this test, we plotted a load/deflection Third, for each single archwire in each
curve for each experimental bracket/wire combination. compatible bracket of nominally identical slot
For the elastic archwires (steel, supertempered steel and dimensions, the clinical significant torque angles
TMA), we considered the loading curve, while in the case were calculated.
of the super-elastic archwires, we considered the curve
generated during the dynamometer strip return phase Results
(Figures 7 and 8). Knowing the distance d between strip Table 3 shows the measured slot heights of each tested
and bracket, and fixing the torque K at 5 and 20 Nmm, bracket in both inches and millimetres, and their per-
we were able to identify the loaf F at which the archwire centage variation from those declared by their respective
expresses moments of 5 and 20 Nmm (the extremes of manufacturers. This data shows that all brackets tested
the clinically efficacious range), by means of the formula featured oversized slots, with the Lancer SFP (Vista, CA,
Table 3 Analysis of slot dimensions

Stated size Measured size (mm) SD Measured size (inch) SD % Increase
Victory 0.56 mm 0.6211 0.0227 0.0245 0.0009 11.16
.022 inch
SFP 0.56 mm 0.5619 0.0250 0.0221 0.0010 0.56
.022 inch
Leone 0.56 mm 0.6191 0.0259 0.02437 0.0010 10.79
.022 inch
Ovation 0.56 mm 0.5896 0.0082 0.0232 0.0003 5.51
.022 inch
Damon 0.56 mm 0.6033 0.0199 0.0238 0.0008 7.96
.022 inch
Nexus 0.56 mm 0.5924 0.0059 0.0233 0.0002 6.01
.022 inch
STB 0.46 mm 0.4772 0.0174 0.0188 0.0007 4.37
.018 inch
GAC BIDI 0.46 mm 0.4629 0.0085 0.0182 0.0003 1.25
.018 inch
Table 4 Analysis of archwire dimensions

Archwire Parameter Stated size Measured SD Measured SD % difference Significant difference
size (mm) size (inch) (P < 0.01)
SS .016 × .016 Height 0.41 0.401 0.008 0.0158 0.0003 −1.25 NS
Width 0.41 0.393 0.002 0.0155 0.0001 −3.22 S
SS .016 × .022 Height 0.41 0.411 0.003 0.0161 0.0001 1.13 NS
Width 0.56 0.558 0.003 0.0220 0.0001 −0.14 NS
SS .017 × .017 Height 0.43 0.434 0.002 0.0170 0.00007 0.51 S
Width 0.43 0.435 0.001 0.0171 0.0000 0.74 S
SS .017 × .022 Height 0.43 0.430 0.002 0.0169 0.00008 −0.34 NS
Width 0.56 0.552 0.001 0.0217 0.0000 −1.28 S
SS .017 × .025 Height 0.43 0.428 0.002 0.0168 0.00006 −0.96 NS
Width 0.64 0.635 0.003 0.0250 0.0001 0.00 S
SS .018 × .018 Height 0.46 0.458 0.001 0.0180 0.00002 0.25 S
Width 0.46 0.456 0.003 0.0180 0.0001 −0.19 NS
SS .018 × .022 Height 0.46 0.438 0.003 0.0172 0.00012 −4.20 S
Width 0.56 0.554 0.002 0.0218 0.0001 −0.80 S
SS .018 × .025 Height 0.46 0.451 0.001 0.0177 0.00005 −1.43 S
Width 0.64 0.636 0.003 0.0250 0.0001 0.16 NS
SS .019 × .025 Height 0.48 0.488 0.001 0.0192 0.00004 1.12 S
Width 0.64 0.636 0.002 0.0250 0.0001 0.10 S
SS .021 × .025 Height 0.53 0.539 0.002 0.0212 0.00006 0.99 S
Width 0.64 0.636 0.001 0.0250 0.0000 0.16 S
SS ST .016 × .022 Height 0.41 0.404 0.001 0.0159 0.0003 −0.59 S
Width 0.56 0.556 0.002 0.0218 0.0008 −0.56 S
SS ST .018 × .022 Height 0.46 0.445 0.001 0.0175 0.0006 −2.74 S
Width 0.56 0.560 0.001 0.022 0,0006 0.27 NS
TMA .0175 × .0175 Height 0.44 0.447 0.001 0.0176 0.00004 0.56 S
Width 0.44 0.444 0.002 0.0175 0.0001 −0.11 S
TMA .019 × .025 Height 0.48 0.488 0.002 0.0192 0.00006 1.05 S
Width 0.64 0.643 0.002 0.0253 0.0001 1.26 S
TMA .021 × .025 Height 0.53 0.539 0.002 0.0212 0.00006 1.11 S
Width 0.64 0.623 0.003 0.0245 0.0001 −1.89 S
CuNiTi .016 × .016 Height 0.41 0.415 0.001 0.0163 0.00004 2.12 S
Width 0.41 0.416 0.003 0.0164 0.0001 2.44 S
CuNiTi .017 × .017 Height 0.43 0.425 0.001 0.0167 0.00002 −1.65 S
Width 0.43 0.425 0.004 0.0167 0.0002 −1.65 NS
Nitinol .017 × .025 Height 0.43 0.432 0.001 0.0170 0.00004 0.05 S
Width 0.64 0.639 0.001 0.0252 0.0000 0.63 NS
CuNiTi .018 × .018 Height 0.46 0.449 0.001 0.0176 0.00005 −1.87 S
Width 0.46 0.449 0.001 0.0177 0.0000 −1.72 S
CuNiTi .018 × .025 Height 0.46 0.456 0.001 0.0179 0.00004 −0.26 S
Width 0.64 0.628 0.001 0.0247 0.0000 −1.05 S
Nitinol Heat .019 × .025 Height 0.48 0.477 0.002 0.0187 0.00006 −1.09 S
Width 0.64 0.635 0.001 0.0250 0.0000 −0.05 S
Nitinol SE .019 × .025 Height 0.48 0.480 0.001 0.0189 0.00004 −0.54 NS
Table 4 Analysis of archwire dimensions (Continued)

Width 0.64 0.601 0.058 0.0236 0.0023 −5.41 NS
Nitinol Hybrid .019 × .025 Height 0.48 0.485 0.004 0.0191 0.00016 0.57 NS
Width 0.64 0.625 0.004 0.0246 0.00016 −1.57 S
Nitinol Heat .021 × .025 Height 0.53 0.528 0.003 0.0207 0.00012 −1.08 NS
Width 0.64 0.633 0.002 0.0249 0.0001 −0.37 S
USA) being the most faithful to its stated measurements within the bracket before its edges come into contact with
(+0.56%), and the Ormco Victory (Orange, CA, USA) the slot walls, enabling it thus to transmit third-order
the least (+11.16%). information to the tooth. The degree of play depends
Table 4 shows the measured heights and widths of entirely on geometric parameters, namely the real slot
each tested archwire, their percentage variation with height, the dimensions of the archwire and the bevel-
those declared by their respective manufacturers and ling of its edge. However, on the products on the mar-
the statistical significance of any differences. Roughly ket, these do not always conform to the measurements
half of the archwires tested were found to be over- declared by the manufacturer. Like other authors, we
sized, and the remainder undersized, in a range span- found that all slots were oversized with respect to the
ning −5.41% to +2.44%. stated dimensions, ranging from +0.56% to +11.16%.
Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 show the ideal archwire/slot play, This is similar to findings reported by Cash et al. [14],
the measured archwire/slot play, the standard devi- for example, who, however, found that Victory brackets
ation, the standard error of the mean and the statistical featured slots 6% greater than their purported height,
significance (P < 0.01). All archwire/bracket combina- and Damon (Ormco, Orange, CA, USA) bracket slots
tions exhibited a significantly greater measured play the difference was as much as 17%, while we measured
angle than the ideal. What is more, several of the arch- respective size differences of 11% and 8% for the same
wires tested rotated within the slots, despite their rect- bracket types. That being said, both of these brackets
angular shape. feature heavily bevelled edges, which can make it diffi-
Tables 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 show the angles at which the cult for the operator to perform measurements on
archwires expressed a clinically significant couple (5 and photographs yielded by a microscope.
20 Nmm). For archwire/bracket combinations that failed The oversized slot dimension involves both vestibular
to generate a torque of 20 Nmm, the maximum value and lingual brackets. In their study, Demling et al. found
reached is reported. The final column of the tables that the lingual brackets from any technique are over-
shows the clinically significant torque interval for each sized with respect to the ideal dimensions, in a range
combination, i.e. how many degrees of torque need to be comparable to that recorded in our research. The torque
applied to reach the maximum 20 Nmm couple from the control is an issue that concerns both the vestibular and
minimum 5 Nmm. This torque is expressed in a single the lingual orthodontics [15].
direction, either clockwise or anticlockwise. Not only the brackets but also the archwires differed
For each archwire tested, the play and torque angles in considerably from their stated dimensions. This finding
nominally identical bracket slots were different, in some confirms that of reported by both Meling and Ødegaard
cases by as much as 100%. The bracket with the largest [1] and Rucker and Cusy [16]. The variability in arch-
difference between real and ideal play angles was the wire size that we identified ranged between −5.41%
Nexus (Valencia, CA, USA). When archwires of nomin- and +2.44%. If the measurements pertaining to the two
ally identical dimensions but different construction ma- archwires at the extremes of the scale are discounted,
terial were compared, it was found that the torque this still leaves 22 out of the 24 falling between the
expression interval was invariably greater in NiTi with range −3.22% and +2.74%. This interval is similar to
respect to steel wires, with the TMA wires exhibiting that reported by Rucker and Cusy [16], who found a
intermediate values. size variation range of −3.2% to +3, 1% in round and
rectangular NiTi and SS archwires.
These imprecisions in manufacture inevitably affect
Discussion the play between the archwire and slot and, therefore,
The play between the archwire and bracket slot is of the torque expression capacity of the appliance.
fundamental importance in clinical orthodontics, as it It is, however, difficult to calculate the real archwire/
indicates how many degrees the archwire must be rotated slot play and torque expression, which needs to take into
Table 5 A comparison of real and ideal play of 0.022 bracket and SS archwire combinations
Ideal play (°) Bracket Engagement angle (°) SD Mean standard error Significant difference
SS.0 16 × .022 17.95 Victory Rotates - - -
SFP 37.94 0.59 0.34 S
Ovation 36.55 1.23 0.71 S
D.B. Leone Rotates - - -
Damon 39.63 0.39 0.22 S
Nexus Rotates - - -
SS .017 × .022 14.61 Victory 36.34 2.07 1.20 S
SFP 27.75 1.10 0.63 S
Ovation 26.56 0.46 0.27 S
D.B. Leone 30.51 2.44 1.41 S
Damon 29.54 0.98 0.57 S
Nexus Rotates - - -
SS .017 × .025 12.48 Victory 28.45 1.42 0.82 S
SFP 20.43 0.59 0.34 S
Ovation 21.53 0.40 0.23 S
D.B. Leone 22.74 0.15 0.09 S
Damon 21.59 0.67 0.38 S
Nexus 40.75 1.61 0.93 S
SS .018 × .022 11.42 Victory 28.72 0.12 0.07 S
SFP 21.40 0.23 0.13 S
Ovation 20.91 0.11 0.07 S
D.B. Leone 23.38 0.67 0.39 S
Damon 19.86 2.24 1.29 S
Nexus 40.43 0.03 0.02 S
SS .018 × .025 9.82 Victory 26.88 0.23 0.13 S
SFP 17.56 0.27 0.16 S
Ovation 18.20 0.31 0.18 S
D.B. Leone 21.64 0.42 0.24 S
Damon 19.85 1.15 0.66 S
Nexus 35.42 0.70 0.41 S
SS .019 × .025 7.24 Victory 18.41 1.87 1.08 S
SFP 14.36 0.10 0.06 S
Ovation 13.80 0.12 0.07 S
D.B. Leone 16.08 0.22 0.13 S
Damon 14.84 0.23 0.13 S
Nexus 28.68 0.48 0.27 S
SS .021 × .025 2.33 Victory 13.65 0.08 0.05 S
SFP 5.60 0.11 0.06 S
Ovation 5.49 0.10 0.06 S
D.B. Leone 9.00 0.41 0.23 S
Damon 5.12 0.10 0.06 S
Nexus 20.99 0.27 0.16 S
Table 6 A comparison of real and ideal play of 0.022 bracket and supertempered steel archwire combination
ST SS .016 × .022 17.95 Victory 35.40 0.32 0.19 S
SFP 32.55 0.95 0.55 S
Ovation 31.37 0.17 0.10 S
D.B. Leone Rotates - - -
Damon 26.09 0.77 0.45 S
Nexus Rotates - - -
ST SS .018 × .022 11.42 Victory 29.43 1.00 0.58 S
SFP 25.66 0.54 0.31 S
Ovation 23.74 0.34 0.20 S
D.B. Leone 29.34 1.95 1.13 S
Damon 18.80 0.44 0.25 S
Nexus Rotates - - -
account all the dimensional parameters, and results do consideration, thereby providing authentic values for
not readily lend themselves to generalizations due to the play and torque. With this approach, we found that for
great variability in archwire and bracket slot dimensions all archwire/bracket combinations tested, the real play
between manufacturers, even if they are nominally the was always greater than the ideal. Indeed, we found that,
same. Indeed, Huang et al. [17] used finite elements ana- in reality, the combination SS .019 × .025 wire/0.022
lysis to evaluate the play and torque expression of pre- bracket combination had a play between 2.2 and 3.2
angled appliances, but failed to consider the bevelled greater with respect to the ideal, which is similar to that
edges of the archwires, meaning that those results have reported by Badawi et al. [18].
little bearing in real-world scenarios. Badawi et al. [18] Both play and torque are significantly influenced by
also set out to measure the archwire/slot play and torque bracket and archwire features. In contrast, the material
angles, using a dynamometer that engaged the ends of used to make the archwire does not significantly affect
the archwire and progressively rotated it in the slot. We the play, although it is a decisive factor in terms of
also used a dynamometer, but adopted a torquing key, as torque. Archambault et al. [21] found that at the same
proposed by Flores et al. [19,20] to help us measure the level of torque, a .019 × .025 SS archwire expresses a
torque and play. This approach has the advantage of tak- couple 1.5 to 2 times greater than a TMA wire of the
ing all geometric factors of the archwire and slot into same dimensions and 2.5 to 3 times greater than the
Table 7 A comparison of real and ideal play of 0.022 bracket and TMA archwire combinations
TMA .019 × .025 7.24 Victory 22.30 0.23 0.13 S
SFP 15.30 0.33 0.19 S
Ovation 15.86 0.24 0.14 S
D.B. Leone 18.46 0.35 0.20 S
Damon 15.41 0.55 0.32 S
Nexus 34.48 2.18 1.26 S
TMA .021 × .025 2.33 Victory 12.94 0.11 0.06 S
SFP 5.66 0.24 0.14 S
Ovation 6.08 0.13 0.07 S
D.B. Leone 9.38 0.35 0.20 S
Damon 6.09 0.59 0.34 S
Nexus 14.51 2.51 1.45 S
Table 8 A comparison of real and ideal play of 0.022 bracket and NiTi archwire combinations
Nitinol .017 × .025 12.48 Victory 27.13 1.13 0.66 S
SFP 21.18 0.75 0.43 S
Ovation 21.29 1.03 0.59 S
D.B. Leone 23.95 0.45 0.26 S
Damon 20.96 0.89 0.51 S
Nexus 39.00 1.12 0.64 S
CuNiTi .018 × .025 9.82 Victory 32.35 0.96 0.56 S
SFP 30.13 0.40 0.23 S
Ovation 23.35 0.70 0.40 S
D.B. Leone 30.79 0.17 0.10 S
Damon 26.60 1.98 1.14 S
Nexus 48.97 0.40 0.23 S
Nitinol .019 × .025 Hybrid 7.24 Victory 28.16 1.05 0.60 S
SFP 19.17 1.05 0.61 S
Ovation 19.20 0.56 0.32 S
D.B. Leone 36.51 3.31 1.91 S
Damon 21.46 0.96 0.56 S
Nexus 42.59 0.14 0.08 S
Nitinol Superelastic .019 × 025 7.24 Victory 19.66 0.75 0.44 S
SFP 15.64 0.48 0.28 S
Ovation 14.96 0.22 0.13 S
D.B. Leone 28.30 2.82 1.63 S
Damon 16.21 0.49 0.28 S
Nexus 26.42 0.46 0.26 S
Nitinol .019 × .025 Heat 7.24 Victory 20.64 0.43 0.25 S
SFP 15.91 0.36 0.21 S
Ovation 13.47 1.52 0.88 S
D.B. Leone 31.09 1.33 0.77 S
Damon 18.36 0.55 0.32 S
Nexus 27.79 0.39 0.23 S
Nitinol .021 × .025 Heat 2.33 Victory 12.42 1.47 0.85 S
SFP 8.27 0.48 0.28 S
Ovation 7.46 0.27 0.15 S
D.B. Leone 15.23 0.03 0.02 S
Damon 10.66 3.39 1.96 S
Nexus 17.50 1.88 1.08 S
NiTi version. These were similar to our results, which In our study, the Nexus bracket was that with the high-
also showed that steel archwires express torque at much est engagement angles with respect to the experimental
smaller angles than NiTi wires of the same cross section. mean. This can be ascribed both to its oversize slot and
This is due to the difference in elastic modulus of the the marked divergence in the slot walls. Furthermore,
different materials and to the super-elastic behaviour of the NiTi clip of the active self-ligating Nexus may have
NiTi. This is in line with Huang's simulations [17] using undergone plastic deformation, thereby reducing its
the finite elements approach. grip. This is an issue of clinical relevance, as clip
Table 9 A comparison of real and ideal play of 0.018 brackets

SS .016 × .016 15.40 STB 18.63 1.42 0.82 S
2D 16.55 0.74 0.43 S
SS .017 × .017 6.96 STB 8.81 0.27 0.16 S
2D 7.20 0.19 0.11 S
SS .018 × .018 0.00 STB 5.77 0.16 0.09 S
2D 2.36 0.19 0.11 S
SS .016 × .022 10.80 STB 14.64 0.03 0.02 S
2D 12.09 0.47 0.27 S
SS .017 × .022 5.31 STB 7.42 0.03 0.02 S
2D 6.01 0.19 0.11 S
SS .017 × .025 4.65 STB 6.54 0.05 0.03 S
2D 4.84 0.08 0.05 S
SS .018 × .022 0.00 STB 4.86 0.12 0.07 S
2D 1.23 0.19 0.11 S
SS .018 × .025 0.00 STB 4.17 0.16 0.09 S
2D 2.26 0.09 0.05 S
ST SS .016 × .022 10.80 STB 11.30 0.06 0.03 S
2D 11.30 0.40 0.23 S
ST SS .018 × .022 0.00 STB 10.82 0.13 0.08 S
2D 4.98 0.14 0.08 S
TMA .0175 × .0175 3.32 STB 9.59 0.87 0.50 S
2D 6.71 0.69 0.40 S
CuNiTi .016 × .016 15.40 STB 20.83 0.25 0.14 S
2D 18.59 0.88 0.51 S
CuNiTi .017 × .017 6.96 STB 16.36 0.58 0.33 S
2D 16.40 0.76 0.44 S
CuNiTi .018 × .018 0.00 STB 8.37 0.46 0.26 S
2D 5.47 0.74 0.43 S
Nitinol .017 × .025 4.65 STB 7.86 0.18 0.10 S
2D 5.94 0.15 0.09 S
NiTi .018 × .025 0.00 STB 14.95 0.27 0.15 S
2D 3.10 0.24 0.14 S
reliability needs to be guaranteed, particularly in the fin- Overall, the tests performed showed a high level of re-
ishing stages of orthodontic treatment. It is also possible peatability, although in certain cases a high standard de-
that the brackets were subject to wear, being tested nu- viation was detected, in all likelihood due to the small
merous times [22,23]. In their recent study, Major et al. variations in size and edge bevelling between different
[24] found that the plastic deformation of the slot is samples of the same archwire, not to mention small vari-
negligible when the applied torque is inferior to 26 to ations in torquing key positioning.
38 Nmm. As in our study, it never exceeded 20 Nmm, it It should also be noted that the test performed is only
is conceivable that a possible plastic deformation oc- a simplified representation of that which occurs in the
curred at the level of the clip and did not involve the oral cavity. Indeed, only single brackets were tested
metal walls, and it could explain the difference in play without any tipping information. This is obviously not
and torque expression between the Nexus and the other the case in real-life orthodontics, in which a multi-
brackets. bracket appliance, composed of 12 to 14 brackets, will
Table 10 Torque expression, 0.022 brackets and conventional steel archwires

Bracket 5 Nmm angle (°) SD 20 Nmm angle (°) SD Maximum moment (Nmm) SD Clinically significant torque (°)
SS .016 × .022 Victory - - - - - - -
SFP 44.70 1.75 - - 6.76 0.64 -
Ovation 41.07 1.53 - - 13.71 0.49 -
D.B. Leone - - - - - - -
Damon - - - - 3.65 0.21 -
Nexus - - - - - - -
SS .017 × .022 Victory 42.83 5.08 - - 10.07 4.25 -
SFP 34.15 1.69 - - 17.67 0.56 -
Ovation 29.32 0.80 39.39 0.31 - - 10.07
D.B. Leone 34.29 3.81 - - 14.23 2.04 -
Damon 34.60 1.71 - - 11.84 0.77 -
Nexus - - - - - - -
SS .017 × .025 Victory 29.34 0.78 34.49 0.50 - - 5.15
SFP 22.44 0.71 28.95 0.22 - - 6.50
Ovation 22.75 0.14 25.41 0.05 - - 2.66
D.B. Leone 24.55 0.41 27.99 0.48 - - 3.44
Damon 23.19 0.74 30.32 5.44 - - 7.14
Nexus 45.07 2.11 - - 15.01 0.87 -
SS .018 × .022 Victory 31.15 0.26 37.38 0.48 - - 6.23
SFP 23.64 0.40 28.14 0.17 - - 4.51
Ovation 22.40 0.24 25.00 0.17 - - 2.60
D.B. Leone 25.47 1.15 30.46 0.83 - - 4.98
Damon 23.37 0.55 32.30 0.50 - - 8.92
Nexus 45.46 2.42 - - 10.21 0.56 -
SS .018 × .025 Victory 28.24 0.25 32.54 0.08 - - 4.30
SFP 19.41 0.43 23.65 0.16 - - 4.24
Ovation 19.40 0.47 24.71 0.15 - - 5.31
D.B. Leone 23.02 0.58 27.15 0.63 - - 4.13
Damon 21.39 1.13 29.50 1.51 - - 8.11
Nexus 38.21 1.37 - - 19.09 0.72 -
SS .019 × .025 Victory 21.64 1.85 23.14 0.05 - - 1.50
SFP 15.86 0.15 18.86 0.03 - - 3.00
Ovation 14.88 0.14 18.11 0.12 - - 3.23
D.B. Leone 17.37 0.10 20.71 0.09 - - 3.34
Damon 16.08 0.39 23.07 0.44 - - 6.99
Nexus 30.43 0.50 35.66 0.22 - - 5.23
SS .021 × .025 Victory 14.52 0.09 16.90 0.05 - - 2.38
SFP 7,.6 0.13 9.94 0.06 - - 2.88
Ovation 6.33 0.16 8.88 0.17 - - 2.54
D.B. Leone 11.40 0.55 18.68 0.44 - - 7.28
Damon 6.06 0.13 8.53 0.13 - - 2.47
Nexus 28.31 0.32 37.60 0.18 - - 9.29
Table 11 Torque expression, 0.022 brackets and supertempered steel archwires

Bracket 5 Nmm angle (°) SD 20 Nmm angle (°) SD Maximum SD Clinically significant
moment (Nmm) torque (°)
ST SS .016 × .022 Victory 40.89 2.17 - - 12.81 0.00 -
SFP 37.10 1.70 - - 16.67 0.57 -
Ovation 34.57 0.68 47.21 0.15 - - 12.64
D.B. Leone - - - - - - -
Damon 29.37 0.77 42.26 3.14 - - 12.89
Nexus - - - - - - -
ST SS .018 × .022 Victory 32.11 1.64 - - 12.81 0.00 -
SFP 28.83 1.03 37.10 0.67 - - 8.27
Ovation 25.76 0.64 34.34 0.16 - - 8.59
D.B. Leone 31.91 2.74 - - 18.46 0.90 -
Damon 21.09 0.49 27.16 0.58 - - 6.07
Nexus - - - - - - -
deflect an archwire in a far more complex fashion. In- than the ideal, and the actual torque expressed by both
deed, second-order misalignment will have an influence 0.018 and 0.022 brackets will therefore always be less
on the torque expressed, by increasing the friction be- than expected. What is more, even when using
tween the archwire and the bracket [25]. Furthermore, brackets and archwires of nominally identical dimen-
the experiment was not designed to take into account sions, there may be great variation in play and torque
the phenomenon of bracket wear, which can increase angles, due to the dimensional imprecision of such
the slot height by as much as 0.02 mm [26]. Never- products. Unfortunately, it appears impossible to com-
theless, our findings do provide food for thought as pensate for such discrepancies in a clinical setting, as,
regards the real expression of information by pre- although in our experience, the bracket slots were in-
angled appliances. variably larger than their nominal size, some archwires
were oversized and some were smaller than the mea-
Conclusions surements declared by the manufacturer, and the vari-
The null hypothesis is rejected. In real life, the play able degree of bevelling will also affect the archwire/
between the archwire and the bracket slot is greater slot play.
Table 12 Torque expression, 0.022 brackets and TMA archwires

TMA .019 × .025 Victory 23.82 0.34 30.51 0.16 - - 6.70
SFP 17.53 0.29 22.59 0.09 - - 5.06
Ovation 17.80 0.47 26.45 0.14 - - 8.65
D.B. Leone 20.38 0.34 26.98 0.17 - - 6.60
Damon 17.03 0.58 23.02 0.40 - - 5.99
Nexus 39.64 2.35 - - 15.12 0.68 -
TMA .021 × .025 Victory 14.03 0.21 17.78 0.03 - - 3.75
SFP 7.09 0.20 11.67 0.13 - - 4.58
Ovation 7.55 0.13 13.36 0.07 - - 5.81
D.B. Leone 10.82 0.26 15.47 0.12 - - 4.65
Damon 8.00 0.33 14.00 0.20 - - 6.00
Nexus 17.81 2.66 - - 16.83 1.02 -
Table 13 Torque expression, 0.022 brackets and NiTi archwires

Bracket 5 Nmm angle (°) SD 20 Nmm angle (°) SD Maximum moment (Nmm) SD
Nitinol .017 × .025 Victory 34.30 0.29 - - 9.37 0.32
SFP 27.06 0.06 - - 14.42 0.23
Ovation 28.53 0.13 - - 12.52 -
D.B. Leone 31.94 0.09 - - 12.85 -
Damon 27.91 0.13 - - 10.63 0.13
Nexus 54.79 0.08 - - 5.24 0.19
CuNiTi .018 × .025 Victory - - - - 3.67 0.11
SFP 41.10 0.29 - - 5.72 0.17
Ovation 36.15 0.17 - - 7.84 -
D.B. Leone 45.84 0.17 - - 5.98 -
Damon - - - - 4.51 0.13
Nexus - - - - 1.52 0.23
Nitinol .019 × .025 Hybrid Victory 39.52 0.27 - - 8.52 0.17
SFP 29.54 0.33 - - 14.30 0.39
Ovation 30.78 0.12 - - 11.66 -
D.B. Leone - - - - 4.79 -
Damon 27.84 0.06 - - 10.81 0.29
Nexus - - - - 2.53 0.72
Nitinol Superelastic .019 × .025 Victory 35.16 0.02 - - 8.09 0.17
SFP 26.01 0.86 - - 11.89 0.17
Ovation 21.55 0.46 - - 11.81 -
D.B. Leone 40.83 0.99 - - 7.95 -
Damon 36.31 0.48 - - 8.30 0.66
Nexus 44.48 0.21 - - 7.39 0.28
Nitinol .019 × .025 Heat Victory 34.06 3.55 - - 7.80 0.00
SFP 28.38 0.12 - - 11.29 0.17
Ovation 22.32 0.13 - - 10.88 -
D.B. Leone 41.70 0.55 - - 7.91 -
Damon 31.27 0.07 - - 7.46 0.17
Nexus 40.00 2.25 - - 5.79 0.11
Nitinol .021 × .025 Heat Victory 28.98 2.20 - - 7.31 0.96
SFP 18.55 0.21 - - 15.42 0.56
Ovation 11.76 0.23 - - 13.52 -
D.B. Leone 21.55 0.20 - - 15.34 -
Damon 27.70 0.12 - - 10.81 0.50
Nexus 29.74 0.14 - - 9.73 0.13
Table 14 Torque expression, 0.018 brackets

SS .016 × .016 STB 23.66 1.91 - - 19.13 0.29 -
2D 23.59 1.17 42.63 0.96 - - 19.04
SS .017 × .017 STB 10.72 0.21 16.44 0.17 - - 5.72
2D 9.51 0.31 17.25 0.16 - - 7.74
SS .018 × .018 STB 7.24 0.14 11.70 0.10 - - 4.46
2D 4.45 0.11 10.49 0.10 - - 6.04
SS .016 × .022 STB 15.76 0.36 20.25 0.44 - - 4.49
2D 13.88 0.47 20.81 0.29 - - 6.92
SS .017 × .022 STB 8.54 0.13 12.24 0.08 - - 3.70
2D 7.47 0.09 11.52 0.00 - - 4.05
SS .017 × .025 STB 7.42 0.03 10.13 0.00 - - 2.71
2D 6.42 0.08 11.34 0.06 - - 4.92
SS .018 × .022 STB 5.71 0.06 8.51 0.00 - - 2.80
2D 3.44 0.40 8.02 0.48 - - 4.58
SS .018 × .025 STB 5.04 0.24 7.90 0.00 - - 2.86
2D 3.95 0.05 7.75 0.06 - - 3.80
ST SS .016 × .022 STB 12.99 0.18 17.99 0.05 - - 5.00
2D 12.68 0.43 17.80 0.16 - - 5.12
ST SS .018 × .022 STB 12.70 0.13 17.64 0.03 - - 4.95
2D 6.10 0.09 9.76 0.03 - - 3.66
TMA .0175 × .0175 STB 12.94 1.09 26.34 0.66 - - 13.40
2D 10.76 0.71 - - 17.57 1.59
CuNiTi .016 × .016 STB - - - - 2.58 0.06 -
2D - - - - 3.75 0.06 -
CuNiTi .017 × .017 STB - - - - 3.17 0.06 -
2D - - - - 4.12 0.19 -
CuNiTi .018 × .018 STB - - - - 4.69 0.06 -
2D 9.58 0.10 18.33 0.08 - - 8.75
Nitinol .017 × .025 STB 12.48 0.16 - - 15.52 0.50 -
2D 12.66 0.10 - - 16.75 0.23 -
NiTi .018 × .025 STB 29.63 0.38 - - 6.52 0.00 -
2D 12.27 0.23 - - 10.14 0.11 -
Competing interests 22. Kapur R, Sinh PK, Nanda RS. Comparison of load transmission and bracket
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. deformation between titanium and stainless steel brackets. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116:275–8.
Authors’ contributions 23. Major TW, Carey JP, Nobes DS, Heo G, Major PW. Deformation and
AA carried out the tests and drafted the manuscript, LL designed the warping of the bracket slot in select self-ligating orthodontic brackets
research protocol, FM carried out the data processing and statistical analysis, due to an applied third order torque. J Orthod. 2012; 39(1):25–33.
GS supervised the research. All authors read and approved the final 24. Major TW, Carey JP, Nobes DS, Heo G, Melenka GW, Major PW. An
manuscript. investigation into the mechanical characteristics of select self-ligated
brackets at a series of clinically relevant maximum torquing angles:
Author details loading and unloading curves and bracket deformation. Eur J Orthod.
1
Postgraduate School of Orthodontics, University of Ferrara, Via Montebello 2013; 35(6):719–29.
31, 44100 Ferrara, Italy. 2Postgraduate School of Orthodontics, University of 25. Kang B, Baek S, Mah J, Yang W. Three-dimensional relationship between
Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. 3Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Via the critical contact angle and the torque angle. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Montebello 31, 44100 Ferrara, Italy. Orthop. 2003; 123:64–73.
26. Lacoursiere RA, Nobes DS, Homeniuk DL, Carey JP, Badawi HH, Major PW.
Received: 12 January 2014 Accepted: 12 February 2014 Measurement of orthodontic bracket tie wing elastic and plastic
deformation by arch wire torque expression utilizing an optical image
correlation technique. J Dent Biomech. 2010; 2010:Epub 2009 Dec 13.
References
doi:10.1186/s40510-014-0053-x
1. Meling T, Ødegaard J. The effect of cross sectional dimensional variations
Cite this article as: Arreghini et al.: Torque expression capacity of 0.018
of square and rectangular chrome-cobalt archwires in torsion. and 0.022 bracket slots by changing archwire material and cross
Angle Orthod. 1998; 68(3):239–48. section. Progress in Orthodontics 2014 15:53.
2. Burstone CJ. The segmented arch approach to space closure. Am J
Orthod. 1982; 82:361–78.
3. Wahl N. Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 2: entering the modern era.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127(4):510–5.
4. Wahl N. Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 16: late 20th-century fixed
appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(6):827–30.
5. Rinchuse DJ, Rinchuse DJ, Kapur-Wadhwab R. Orthodontic appliance
design. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(1):76–82.
6. Kusy RP. A review of contemporary archwires: their proprieties and
characteristics. Angle Orthod. 1997; 67(3):197–208.
7. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Thermal and mechanical characteristics of stainless
steel, titanium-molybdenum, and nickel-titanium archwires. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131:229–37.
8. Johnson E. Relative stiffness of beta titanium archwires. Angle Orthod.
2003; 73:259–69.
9. Gurgel JA, Pinzan-Vercelino CRM, Powers JM. Mechanical properties of
beta-titanium wires. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81:478–83.
10. Sifakakis I, Pandis N, Makou M, Eliades T, Katsaros C, Bourauel C. Torque
expression of 0.018 and 0.022 inch conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod.
2013; 35(5):610–4.
11. Detterline DA, Isikbay SC, Brizendine EJ, Kula KS. Clinical outcomes of
0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot using the ABO objective grading
system. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(3):528–32.
12. Meling TR, Ødegaard J. The effect of second-order couple on the application
of torque. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113:256–62.
13. Meling TR, Ødegaard J. On the variability of cross-sectional dimensions
and torsional properties of rectangular nickel-titanium arch wires. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113:546–57.
14. Cash AC, Good SA, Curtis RV, McDonald F. An evaluation of slot size in
orthodontic brackets—are standards as expected? Angle Orthod. 2004;
74:450–3.
15. Demling A, Dittmer MP, Schwestka-Polly R. Comparative analysis of slot
dimension in lingual bracket systems. Head Face Med. 2009; 5:27.
16. Rucker BK, Kusy RP. Elastic flexural properties of multistranded stainless
steel versus conventional nickel titanium archwires. Angle Orthod. 2002;
72:302–9. Submit your manuscript to a
17. Huang Y, Keilig L, Rahimi A, Reimann S, Eliades T, Jager A, Bourauel C.
Numeric modeling of torque capabilities of self-ligating and conventional journal and beneﬁt from:
brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136:638–43.
18. Badawi HM, Toogood RW, Carey JPR, Heo G, Major PW. Torque expression 7 Convenient online submission
of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133:721–8. 7 Rigorous peer review
19. Flores DA, Choi LK, Caruso JM, Tomlinson JL, Scott GE, Jeiroudi MT. 7 Immediate publication on acceptance
Deformation of metal brackets: a comparative study. Angle Orthod. 1994; 7 Open access: articles freely available online
64(4):283–90.
7 High visibility within the ﬁeld
20. Flores DA, Caruso JM, Scott GE, Jeiroudi MT. The fracture strength of
ceramic brackets: a comparative study. Angle Orthod. 1990; 60(4):269–76. 7 Retaining the copyright to your article
21. Archambault A, Lacoursierea R, Badawi H, Major PW, Carey J, Flores-Mir C.
Torque expression in stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod.
Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com
2010; 80:201–10.

Torque Expression Capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 Bracket Slots by Changing Archwire Material and Cross Section

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torque Expression Capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 Bracket Slots by Changing Archwire Material and Cross Section

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arreghini et al.

Progress in Orthodontics 2014, 15:53

RESEARCH Open Access

Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022

Table 1 Brackets selected for the study

Figure 1 Nexus bracket photographed under electron microscope.

Table 2 Archwires selected for the study

Figure 2 Torque testing using an Instron 4467 dynamometer.

Figure 4 Torquing key with archwire engaged.

Figure 5 Torque testing.

Figure 6 Schematic of torque testing.

Figure 7 Load/deflection curve, steel archwire.

Figure 8 Load/deflection curve, NiTi archwire.

Table 3 Analysis of slot dimensions

Table 4 Analysis of archwire dimensions

Table 4 Analysis of archwire dimensions (Continued)

Table 9 A comparison of real and ideal play of 0.018 brackets

Table 10 Torque expression, 0.022 brackets and conventional steel archwires

Table 11 Torque expression, 0.022 brackets and supertempered steel archwires

Table 12 Torque expression, 0.022 brackets and TMA archwires

Table 13 Torque expression, 0.022 brackets and NiTi archwires

Table 14 Torque expression, 0.018 brackets

You might also like